Thousands of infertile couples could benefit from a new IVF procedure that can dramatically improve the success rate of having a baby through artificial reproduction.
Scientists believe they can double or even triple the proportion of healthy babies born as a result fertility treatment with a relatively simple technique that takes a series of time-lapse photographs of the developing IVF embryos.

On average only about 24 per cent of IVF embryos implanted into women in the UK lead to live births but the researchers believe this could be increased to 78 per cent using the new technique for selecting the best embryos.

I believe it is the most exciting breakthrough we’ve had in probably 30 years,” said Professor Simon Fishel, managing director of the CARE Fertility Group, where the technique was developed.

“Every IVF practice in the world is unintentionally and unwittingly putting back into the womb unviable embryos that don’t make babies,” Professor Fishel said. “We hope to see a paradigm shift in terms of IVF. It’s a game changer for everybody to have such an uplift in live birth rates. This is the beginning of something revelatory,” he said

Each year, licensed clinics in Britain carry out about 60,000 IVF treatments but most of them end in failure, causing immense emotional upset to couples, many of whom have paid between £5,000 and £10,000 for each treatment cycle.

The new procedure, which costs £750, identifies the best embryos to be implanted into the womb based on the time it has taken to develop between two key stages in the early life-cycle of the embryo.

Thousands of time-lapse pictures are taken during the first few days of an IVF embryo’s life and these are used to identify the time between the first appearance of the fluid-filled cavity, called the blastula, and the final moment before the embryo “hatches” from its protective shell.

Scientists have discovered that when this period lasts longer than about six hours, the IVF embryo is likely to be carrying an abnormal number of chromosomes, called aneuploidy, which will lead to a failure of the pregnancy.

A preliminary study, published in the journal Reproductive Medicine Online and based on a retrospective analysis of 88 IVF embryos of 69 couples, found that the time-lapse technique could have improved the success rate of life births in this particular group of patients from 39 per cent to 61 per cent.

Even better success rates can be expected once the procedure is refined and applied to the wider population of infertile couples seeking IVF treatment, Professor Fishel said.

“Our work has shown that we can easily classify embryos into low or high risk of being chromosomally abnormal. This is important because in itself this is the largest single cause of IVF failure and miscarriage,” he said. “The beauty of this technology is that the information is provided by a non-invasive process. So far we have seen a 56 per cent uplift compared to conventional technology, giving our patients the equivalent to a 78 per cent live-birth rate,” he added.

Normally, IVF embryos in an incubator are checked manually each day by embryologists but the time-lapse cameras are able to do this automatically by taking pictures every 10 minutes without interfering with embryo development, said Alison Campbell, embryology director at Care Fertility in Nottingham, who developed the computer algorithm controlling the analysis.

“With time-lapse we have the ability to view more than 5,000 images over the same time period to observe and measure more closely each stage of division and growth. As a result of continuous monitoring we have demonstrated that delays at defined points indicate abnormal development,” Ms Campbell said.

Martin Johnson, a fertility expert and editor of the journal where the work is published, said further “prospective” studies comparing the technique to existing methods of embryo selection are still needed before the procedure is recommended as standard treatment. “There are caveats with this research….and for these reasons we have to be cautious,” he said.

Sue Avery, director of Birmingham Women’s Fertility Centre, said: “Unfortunately the study does not compare this exciting new approach with standard practise in embryology in which embryologists already look for the best embryos to place in the womb. Until the new technique is compared to current practise we cannot know whether different embryos are being chosen.”

Egg timing: Key stages

The developing embryo (image one, above) goes through two key stages when the fluid-filled cavity or “blastula” first forms (image two) and when the blastula is fully formed before the embryo “hatches” (image three).

The time between the two is used to judge whether the embryo is viable, with no defects in chromosome numbers. If the period is longer than six hours, the embryo is at high risk of abnormal chromosomes, which will inevitably lead to complications. Time-lapse photographs can indicate which embryos have a shorter time-period between these two points, and so which embryos are best for implantation into the womb.

British researchers found that gently scratching the lining of the womb a month before IVF treatment improved the chances of pregnancy. A review of research on the technique found that twice as many women became pregnant after the procedure than without, boosting pregnancy rates to almost one in two.
Doctors at Guy’s and St Thomas’ hospital, central London, are carrying out a larger trial to establish the overall efficacy of the technique with the hope of offering it routinely within three to five years.

It is thought that scratching the womb lining stimulates growth factors and repair mechanisms that allow the fertilised egg to embed more easily. It takes only 15 minutes in clinic, can be carried out by trained nurses and uses simple equipment already in use. The procedure may add less than £100 to the average £4,500 cost of a cycle of IVF treatment.

Dr Tarek El-Toukhy, who led the review study, said: “Endometrial scratching uses simple, inexpensive equipment that most hospitals already have and which clinicians are already trained to use, so complications are rare.

“It’s exciting that the chance of pregnancy could be doubled. The next step is to see if this applies to birth rates. About a third of IVF treatments result in a baby, so improving these odds would make a big difference to people trying to have children through IVF.”

The findings from the review of eight studies involving 911 patients are published in Reproductive Biomedicine online. In the review, 128 out of 499 women who did not have the womb procedure became pregnant — almost 26 per cent. Of the 412 women who had the procedure, 198 fell pregnant, or 48 per cent.

There were no serious side effects reported and early signs are that the doubling in rates will be translated into birth rates. The women in the study had all suffered repeated unexplained implantation failure, meaning other aspects of their fertility seemed normal but the egg did not implant properly in the womb.

Maha Ragunath, the clinical director of Care Nottingham, the biggest private provider of fertility treatment in England, said the technique should be offered widely to all IVF patients in the near future. She has begun carrying out the procedure for patients who have suffered repeated failed cycles of IVF.

“This is really priming the womb to receive the embryo,” she said. “It is a bit like having a smear test for cervical cancer. It is very quick and simple. “I think any doctor reading the review would want to at least talk to their patients about this procedure. “There is obviously something to be gained from it, no long-term damage and it is so inexpensive, so why not?”

IVF treatment in younger women dramatically increases their chance of developing breast cancer later in life, research suggests.
Women who started taking fertility drugs and went through IVF around their 24th birthday were found to have a 56 per cent greater chance of developing breast cancer than those in the same age group who went through treatments without IVF.

But there was no increased risk for women who started fertility treatments when they were about 40 years old, regardless of whether they had IVF or not, according to the Australian study

The researchers said: ‘For younger women there is some cause for concern, because it appears that they may face an increased risk of breast cancer after IVF treatment.’

The findings were based on a study of more than 21,000 women and published in the journal Fertility and Sterility. Study author Louise Stewart from the University of Western Australia said younger women might see an increased risk of breast cancer because they are exposed to higher levels of circulating estrogen during their cycles of IVF treatment.

In the UK 45,264 women had IVF treatment in 2010. A third of women under 35 successfully had a child as a result However, she added: ‘I don’t think it’s a huge increased risk that you should worry or panic (about).’

The researchers collected information on 21,025 women between the ages of 20 and 40 who went through fertility treatment at the hospitals of Western Australia between 1983 and 2002.

They were able to piece together enough data to follow the women for some 16 years to see if they developed breast cancer.

Roughly 1.7 per cent of the 13,644 women who only used fertility drugs without IVF ended up developing breast cancer by the end of the study. That figure was about two percent for women who used fertility drugs and underwent IVF – a difference that researchers said wasn’t statistically significant.

This changed when women were divided into different age groups, with women aged 24 about one-and-a-half times more likely to develop breast cancer if they had IVF alongside other fertility treatments.

However, Stewart said they couldn’t yet say that IVF was causing the increased cancer risk in younger women, as these women could be different in some significant way from those who only have other types of fertility treatment.

‘If for example, younger women who had IVF were more likely to have a specific cause of infertility, and this was related to an increased risk of breast cancer, then it would appear that IVF was related to breast cancer when in fact it was the type of infertility that was more common in women who had IVF,’ she said.

Linda Giudice, president-elect of the American Society of Reproductive Medicine, added: ‘The development of breast cancer is linked to estrogen exposure and the longer one is exposed, the greater the risk.

‘In an IVF cycle there is a short, but significant elevation in circulating estrogen, and whether this is linked to the observations found in the study is not clear at this time.’

The researchers said the study results would reassure women who start IVF treatment in their 30s and 40s. However, they added: ‘Women should be aware that delivering their ﬁrst child late in reproductive life, whether assisted by IVF or not, is associated with an increased risk of breast cancer.’

Statistically, younger women have a greater chance of successfully having a baby following IVF. They suggested a follow-up study of women who undergo a greater range of cycles to see if there’s a connection between IVF ‘dose’ and breast cancer rate.

A recent report states that there is a higher risk of complications and multiple births in pregnancies that result from IVF techniques.
A report by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists said there were increased risks of premature births, low birth weight and congenital abnormalities. However, it said the vast majority of IVF children were as healthy as other children. IVF accounts for over 1% of UK births. Advances in fertility research have allowed more infertile couples to have children and at an older age.

Risks

The Royal College’s Scientific Advisory Committee reviewed the risks of IVF, which it said were directly related to the number of foetuses and that IVF techniques appeared to double the risk of twins.

It said: “About one in four of all IVF pregnancies result in a multiple birth in the UK owing to the common practice of replacing two or three embryos.”

It also said there was a 23% increased risk of a premature birth, but the risk remained low. “IVF pregnancies still demonstrate an increased risk of low birth weight,” it said. Heart defects, cleft lips and other congenital anomalies are also more common. It said around 5% of all babies were diagnosed with an abnormality, but IVF babies were around a third more likely to have a problem.

Long term

Later in life, the report said there were no differences in brain, language or behavioural development and there “appears to be little impact at age 12”.

Prof Jenny Kurinczuk, director of the National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit at the University of Oxford, said: “IVF pregnancies carry an increased risk of poor birth outcomes and complications. Nevertheless the majority of the children born following IVF will have a good outcome just like any other children.

“The poor birth outcomes and complications may be a combination of treatment and underlying features of the couple such as older maternal age. However, treatment strategies can be altered to improve outcomes such as the adoption of elective single embryo transfer.”

Read more about alternatives to IVF such as home insemination and the Duo-fertility monitor which is as effective as one cycle of IVF after 6 months of use.

THE Pope has been attacked as archaic and out of touch after urging infertile couples to shun IVF and insisting sex between a husband and wife was the only acceptable way of conceiving.
Melinda Roberts, mother of Thomas, 3, and Matthew, 7 months, said Pope Benedict XVI’s words angered her. “Both of my children were conceived through IVF, and every day my husband and I are eternally grateful for the assistance,” the Glen Waverley mum said.

Is the Pope right to speak out against IVF? Join the debate below Monash IVF director Professor Gab Kovacs said the Pope was out of touch, and “most … in his congregation take no notice of him”.

Many Catholic couples sought fertility treatment, allowing themselves to be dictated by their consciences and what was right, rather than the church, Prof Kovacs said.

He said the Catholic Church had not changed its stance since the beginning of reproductive medicine in the 1970s. Speaking at a conference on infertility in Rome, the Pope said artificial methods of getting pregnant were arrogance, insisting that sex between a husband and wife was the only acceptable way of conceiving.

Matrimony was the “only place worthy of the call to existence of a new human being”, he told scientists and fertility experts. “The human and Christian dignity of procreation, in fact, doesn’t consist in a “product”, but in its link to the conjugal act, an expression of the love of the spouses of their union, not only biological but also spiritual,” he said.

Melbourne’s City Fertility Centre medical director Dr David Wilkinson said most of his patients had already been trying to conceive through conjugal relations, but it had not worked.

The Pope was also critised for his recent comments stating that ‘Gay marriage is one of several threats to the traditional family unit that undermines ‘the future of humanity itself’.

The Vatican and Catholic officials around the world have protested against moves to legalise gay marriage in Europe and other developed parts of the world.

Fotunately many people including Roman Catholics do not agree with some of the moral teachings of this Pope, or his charismatic predecessor, Pope John Paul II, on matters such as birth control, fertility treatment, women priests or homosexuality.

Fertility clinics are charging women who want to have children three times the actual cost of their treatment – with the NHS as guilty as private practitioners in exploiting desperate couples.

The accusation comes from the fertility pioneer Lord Robert Winston, who today launches a scathing attack on the high cost of fertility treatment in the UK and the unfettered use of expensive, unproven tests by private clinics.

The Labour peer and former head of the NHS IVF clinic at Hammersmith Hospital said there was a “huge amount of exploitation going on” and that some of the charges were a “scandal”. “A combination of avarice on the part of the clinics and desperation on the part of the women is driving this market,” he said in an interview with The Independent.

Figures show over 45,000 women had IVF in 2010, with 60 per cent paying for themselves and 40 per cent treated on the NHS. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence recommends that eligible women aged from 23 to 39 be offered three cycles of treatment on the NHS but primary care trusts vary widely in how closely they follow the guidance.

For the majority of patients, who must pay privately, the average basic cost of treatment is £2,500 a cycle in clinics run by the NHS and £3,500 in private clinics. The price of drugs and tests is added to the bill which can double the cost. Lord Winston said: “My view is that both NHS and private clinics are charging much more than the cost of delivering the treatment.” He calculated the costs, taking account of salaries and overheads, for a large unit treating 2,000 patients a year where economies of scale meant it could carry out treatment more efficiently.

“I costed the salaries very generously and concluded you could deliver treatment for £700 per cycle. Adding in the overheads [equipment, materials, rent] takes that to £1,200 to £1,300 a cycle. “NHS clinics are charging their private patients around £2,500 a cycle and private clinics around £3,500 a cycle. It is pure exploitation. The NHS is basing its fees not on what it costs but on what it thinks the market will bear.”

He said some clinics were charging annual fees of £350 to store frozen embryos and eggs when liquid nitrogen cost 70 pence a flask and the storage costs amounted to no more than £10 a year. “It is a scandal,” he said.

Lord Winston also attacked the growing use of experimental techniques for which there was little evidence by private clinics trying to enhance their success rates. “There are no randomised controlled trials and without trials we cannot know that they work. Can you imagine going into hospital with cancer and a doctor saying, ‘I am going to give you this treatment because I think it might work?’

“If you are doing experimental treatment there should be a cast-iron rule that you don’t charge vast sums to the patient. What they are doing is profiting from something that has not been trialled.” Responding to the criticism, Simon Fishel, managing director of Care Fertility, the largest private provider of IVF in the UK, challenged Lord Winston to defend his own private practice at the Royal Masonic Hospital during the 1990s. “Why did he charge what he charged then? His clinic was not achieving the best success rates but charged among the highest prices.”

Mr Fishel said the ethics of using new tests on patients for which there was only anecdotal evidence was one he “wrestled with”. He was the first to use a screening technique called array-comparative genomic hybridisation, which led to the birth of a baby to a mother whose 13 previous attempts at IVF had failed. “Anecdotal evidence is never enough. But you can’t always start off with [better] evidence. When was sperm injection ever proven to be safe before it was introduced in the UK? The largest cause of miscarriage is chromosomal abnormality. If we can screen out embryos which are chromosomally abnormal, the patient may have a better chance [of giving birth].

“If we were paying credence to Robert Winston’s view we wouldn’t be treating patients and we wouldn’t have won the Nobel Prize [awarded to Sir Robert Edwards in 2010 for the world’s first IVF baby born in 1978]. In the end treatment must be evidence-based but it doesn’t mean you have to start off from there.” Lord Winston said all the money raised from his private work had gone to charity and was ploughed back into treating NHS patients. “I raised millions of pounds. I don’t think I could sleep at night paying into my personal account the large sums that women are paying for treatment.”

IVF treatment conceivable changes

Getting fertility treatment on the NHS could be about to become more difficult. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence is updating its guidance on infertility treatment and is due to publish new recommendations in February.

Current guidance says that women aged 23 to 39 who have been trying for a baby for a year without success should be offered three cycles of IVF. But provision for the one in seven couples in the UK which has difficulty conceiving is patchy. Campaigners fear criteria for treatment may be tightened under the new guidelines. In addition, they say the NHS reforms which include plans for GPs to take over commissioning of services could exacerbate the existing postcode lottery.

Susan Seenan, deputy chief executive of the Infertility Network, said IVF must be commissioned nationally to ensure equality of access: “IVF treatment is the only example of an accepted medical intervention that is routinely rationed. Local commissioning of fertility services will only serve to widen this postcode lottery, further entrenching inequalities in the health service.”

Case study: ‘The treatment is hugely expensive’

Gill Tinsdeall and her husband Mark spent £20,000 on five failed attempts at IVF before turning to adoption. “It was absolutely shattering. IVF treatment is hugely expensive. We were able to afford it by going without things but it is a huge amount of money.” Gill, a human resources manager and Mark, who works for a water company, began treatment in West Yorkshire in 2007. She was then 34, and though one cycle of treatment was offered on the NHS, there was a year-long waiting list and they felt they could not wait. They paid around £3,000 as private patients to be treated at their local NHS hospital, but were unsuccessful. Another attempt at a private clinic led to a pregnancy but Gill miscarried.

Two failed attempts with donor eggs followed, and a final attempt, paid for this time by the NHS, was also unsuccessful. Gill said: “The fight to get access to NHS treatment added hugely to the stress. The only thing that kept me going was the friends I met through Infertility UK. They helped me through the nightmare.” Contact infertilitynetworkuk.com

Scientists have developed a ‘fertility wand’ that has been shown to double the chances of becoming pregnant. The pregnancy rate among women undergoing IVF who had the new treatment was 32.7 per cent, compared to 13.7 per cent in comparison groups who did not have the therapy.

The live birth rate was also higher in the treatment group — 22.4 per cent compared to 9.8 per cent in the untreated group. The new treatment works on the womb lining. Fertility experts believe a poor quality womb lining may be a significant factor in women struggling to conceive.

In order for a woman to become pregnant, a fertilised egg, or embryo, has to become implanted into the womb lining. This process is complex, involving hormones, growth factors and chemicals produced by the immune system called cytokines.

The process is not fully understood, and there is no treatment if it goes wrong. However, Israeli researchers recently made the discovery that slight damage to the womb lining actually results in improved fertility. They found that 45 women who had undergone a uterine biopsy — where tissue was taken from the lining of the womb — had almost twice the rate of pregnancies and births as a control group.

A U.S. study found this damage triggered a repair response in the body, producing growth factors and cytokines. It also increased the activity of genes thought to play a role in preparing the lining for implantation.

These findings have been put to the test in a new trial involving 100 women who’d previously failed to conceive with IVF, despite their embryos being of a good quality. They were either given the new treatment or were allocated to a control group.

Pipelle The treatment involves inserting a long plastic tube-like device (known as the Pipelle) into the womb and then rotating it 360 degrees to ‘scratch’ the lining. Patients in the study were given painkillers 30 minutes before the procedure, which was carried out twice in one month.

The results, reported in the Journal of Human Reproduction Sciences, showed the pregnancy rate in the treated group was over double that of the control group.

Further clinical trials using the technique are now underway. Some 500 women are being recruited at Mansoura University in Egypt, while in another trial at the Sheba Medical Centre, Israel, 70 IVF patients will be randomly, selected to undergo the therapy with the Pipelle device.

Commenting on the research, Sanjay Vyas, a gynaecologist at Southmead Hospital, Bristol says: ‘This is very interesting work. Implantation failure when the quality of embryos transferred is good can be heartbreaking because it cannot be predicted.

‘This intervention is simple, and if it genuinely improves the implantation rate, it would be very good news. ‘We await the results of the larger trial with interest.’

A new study published in European Obstetrics & Gynaecology shows that just six months using the DuoFertility monitor and service gives the same chance of pregnancy as a cycle of in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) for many infertile couples. This study demonstrates that there is a viable non-invasive, drug-free alternative to IVF for thousands of couples, with the potential to save them (and the NHS) millions of pounds each year.

The paper is the first peer-reviewed publication of clinical pregnancy rates using the new DuoFertility product and service. Lead author, Dr. Oriane Chausiaux said “The results show that for couples suffering from unexplained infertility as well as a variety of other factors, twelve months using DuoFertility yields a higher clinical pregnancy rate than a cycle of IVF.” Not only is IVF invasive for the woman and demeaning for the man, but for many couples it is a procedure needlessly costing the NHS, or the couple themselves, thousands of pounds. A typical cycle of IVF in the private sector costs £7,000 all up. By comparison the DuoFertility program offers a year of monitoring and support for £500 – and it comes with a 12-month money-back pregnancy guarantee.

The publication coincides with the 200th reported pregnancy by users of DuoFertility, which was celebrated at the weekend with a party hosted by medical personality Dr. Miriam Stoppard. Dr. Stoppard, addressing the assembled parents and parents-to-be, said “[it is] the first product or service that I have seen in this arena which truly wraps around all of the needs of the couple, from the medical monitoring, to the review of this data by experts, and then the all-important emotional support that is provided.”…”The results of the scientific studies on pregnancy rate are very encouraging, but do need to be followed up with live birth rates, and I look forward to seeing further research.”

The authors of the study caution that although non-invasive and drug-free, DuoFertility is not suitable for all couples. Dr. Husheer, inventor of DuoFertility explained “although DuoFertility is suitable for around 80% of infertile couples, there are some couples with medically identified conditions that prevent natural conception, such as a woman with two blocked fallopian tubes. In these cases IVF is absolutely the right thing to do, enabling conception where it was previously a physical impossibility.”

About Cambridge Temperature Concepts Cambridge Temperature Concepts Limited (CTC) has developed a new kind of wireless physiological monitor, which measures body temperature, heat flow and movement with unprecedented resolution. The first application (DuoFertility) is in conception assistance for couples suffering infertility, however work is underway in areas as diverse as sleep quality monitoring, hypoglycemia detection, infection control and a range of veterinary applications. DuoFertility is a non-invasive, easy-to-use female fertility monitor. It is the most natural, convenient, and precise way of maximising the chances of getting pregnant.

CTC was founded by graduate students at the University of Cambridge in, winning business competitions at collegiate, university, regional and national levels prior to Angel funding. Less than 18 months later, the DuoFertility product had progressed from sheet-of-paper through medical device approvals, production prototype, Europe-wide trial, and had gained first direct-to-consumer sales.

Article: by Cambridge Temperature Concepts, 14th December 2011

Read more about DuoFertility monitor available to purchase at Pride Angel’s Shop

A controversial lottery, offering £25,000 worth of IVF treatment as a prize, has been given the go ahead. The Gambling Commission has licensed To Hatch, a UK charity offering fertility advice, to sell tickets to win the fertility treatment in a monthly draw.
The creator of To Hatch, Camille Strachan said: ‘We will offer struggling couples a completely tailor made service. We hope the To Hatch Lottery can ease the burden on the NHS and reduce the stress slightly on some of those who are struggling’.

Both the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) and the British Fertility Society (BFS) have issued statements outlining their concerns over the proposed lottery.

‘The British Fertility Society is very troubled by the announcement that the charity To Hatch is about to launch an IVF lottery. Although access to effective fertility treatment on the NHS remains patchy, and expensive for those who take the private route, we cannot condone this kind of activity’, said Alison McTavish, secretary of the BFS. ‘A competition like this, where only the lucky few will be given the chance to start a family, mirrors the ‘postcode lottery’ of IVF provision on the NHS and is equally unfair’.

The HFEA said in its statement: ‘The HFEA is strongly of the view that using IVF as ‘prize’ in a lottery is wrong and entirely inappropriate. To do so runs counter to the ethos that underpins our regulatory system and clinical practice. It trivialises what is for many people a central part of their lives’.

The lottery will begin on 30 July, with tickets costing £20 a time and the prize open to anyone – not just couples. Single, gay and elderly players won’t be excluded from taking part, and if IVF treatment is not a suitable option, it has been suggested that the winner will be offered alternative treatments such as sperm donors, egg donors or surrogacy.

Winners will receive IVF treatment in a choice of one of five top fertility clinics as well as accommodation and other expenses incurred as part of the treatment.

A fashion designer has been left distraught after she was turned down for IVF funding because her partner already has a son from a previous relationship.
Susi Henson, 33, is unable to conceive naturally as she suffers from polycystic ovary syndrome, which causes cysts to form on her ovaries. She and her partner Jay Nightingale visited their GP and were referred for treatment.

But after a six-month wait, the couple were told by health bosses their funding request had been turned down because Mr Nightingale, 40, has a 20-year-old son whom Ms Henson has never met. This means they will have to find £7,500 to pay for the treatment privately.

Health guidance organisation the National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) recommends all couples with fertility problems aged between 23 and 39 should be allowed three courses of IVF paid for by the NHS. However, NHS Nottinghamshire County stipulates that couples who have a child from a previous relationship are not eligible.

Miss Henson, from Nottingham, said today: ‘How can we not be classed as a childless couple? Jay’s son lives in Wales, and I’ve never met him. ‘It is a totally unfair system. If I lived in another part of the country I would be able to get funding.

‘But the health authorities here won’t allow for it. I believe it is totally wrong. It’s discriminatory, a complete postcode lottery.’ Miss Henson, who owns a corset-making firm, is now calling for the treatment to be made available for all infertile couples. She said: ‘I’m sure I’m not the only one out there having these issues. I’m doing this not just for ourselves but for everyone else out there, men and women.

‘The condition I have is a disease so treatment should be covered. ‘My partner and I are both self-employed and are having to save a lot of cash to be able to think about paying for treatment. ‘There must be many out there who cannot afford it. It isn’t right.’

Miss Henson has been told that, before any IVF treatment, she will need a year-long course of the drug colmid. Treatment including IVF and the drug would cost £7,500.